Lobster tailed helmet circa 1640
 

Hello,

Here is my lobster tailed helmet, cavalry helmet in Europe around 1640-1660. It is the best known model, I think German, many of these helmets were kept in arsenals from what I had heard. Anyone have an idea about the manufacturer? "L"

This is a fine example indeed, Thomas. I wish knowledged members came in to comment on it. It looks like the "L" mark doesn't appear in basic marks books, where we see that armour smith marks are usually more elaborated.
By the way, have you tried the 'Search' button, to check in our archives the various threads on the lobster tail helmet ? Lots of material over there.


.

Thank you Fernando, yes I saw that there are several similar helmets here on the forum. But for the moment nothing for this marking. I have already seen the same models with an "M". But I don't know any more. If other members have more information, I'm interested!

I always thought those letters stamped on the nasal guard were arsenal marks, but I could be wrong.

Here’s a link for a publication on European helmets published by the Met: http://resources.metmuseum.org/resou...Collection.pdf

Also amazing pictures of a Zischägge (officer version) with lining intact.

Excelent link to the Met publication, Victrix. Thanks much for sharing :cool: .

Yes, probably some code letter to deal with production inside the arsenal or workshop, assembly lot or the like, but not an actual origin mark to be recognized on the "market".
BTW, isn't that a letter (M?) in the nasal of the impecable example you are posting ?

Impressive this model of officer! Thanks for the link, very interesting.
Amazing to see this helmet with its headdress.

Either that or a W, depending on the point of view. Thinking about it, I have seen these letters mostly on the simpler munitions grade Zischäggen. Some of the higher quality decorated ones have maker’s or guild marks but nasal bars are not marked with these letters. Maybe some armourers specialized in nasal bar production and this relatively simple item could have been outsourced in mass production supply chains.

I have another Lobster Pot exactly the same as the one that is the subject of this thread, also marked with the L. It was acquired by my uncle many decades ago at an auction of a farm's contents near Cambridge in England.
I'd be most interested to learn if these were all actually made in Germanic states or if many were in fact made in England & who that L represents.

Expanding on Victrix post #8, if i may, the letter M (or W) being similar to the initially introduced letter L, would in principle indicate a German origin for these helmets. I wouldn't know how Cromwell equipped his cavalry but he might as well have imported some of these for his Civil War struggle ... or would have been the Royal forces; thus its showing up in England.
As previously discussed in other threads, i would say more than once, this type of lettering, as well as marks like punched dots or filed lines, are among those applied in mass production workshops to assemble the different parts; or any other sign or meaning that not smiths signatures. Not wishing to switch on the complicometer, we may recall an article by master armourer Chris Dobson in that he classifies 'marks' as been those of Forging, Constructional, Batch, Signatures, Workshop, View, Arsenal and Size.
And by the way, the letter M (or L) does not only appear in nasals but also on the front cap, as in Adrian's example. And do i see it punched in both those places in Thomas helmet ?.

I wish Dirk came in on this one, so that we hear what he says about it.


.


.

Yes I think that too. Indeed, on mine, we find this letter in two places.

Dear all,

I just acquired one of their brothers. "L" stamp on the nasal bar and the front cap. I wonder if this is a makers mark or an armoury mark.
Here is an example of the armoury in Graz (Austria):
http://www.hermann-historica-archiv....db=kat58_a.txt

The discription says that there is the armoury mark and makers mark (Jakob Topf) on the front cap. Assuming that the squiggly mark is the one of the maker, the "F" might be the mark for Graz´armoury. So I tend to assume that the "L" or "M" and "H" and what letters else appear are armoury marks. If so, it would be great to find out to which armoury the letters (especially the "L" :) ) belong.

Kind regards
Andreas

According to Dudley Hawtrey Gyngell, Compilation of known Marks of Armourers, Swordsmiths and Gunsmiths the F is the armourer’s mark. The crowned mark must then be the Graz Armoury mark. Would dearly like to know what that looks like assuming Hermann Historica is correct in their product description.

Great! Thanks for clarifying this, Victrix.
That does also mean, that this piece here: https://www.hermann-historica.de/de/...s/lot/id/33749
is also to date as early as 1618 - 1628. I was always assuming that the helmets with the higher calottes (like the one in the link of my last entry) where more early (around 1630). But that means, that also earlier helmets have "medium high" calottes. Am I right?

These marks are a bit of a minefield unfortunately and books on them can’t be relied on uncritically. I think the book tells you that the author identified items with that mark from that time period. It’s unlikely that the Master armourer himself churned out dozens of zischägges but more likely they were produced by his workshop and perhaps by his descendants. So I think you need to not take the dates literally. :D The below is taken from The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in ...
by Alan R. Williams.

I think generally the less standardized looking Austrian zischägges tend to be earlier, and that includes the ones with higher calottes. In Peter Krenn’s excellent “Imperial Austria, Treasures of Art, Arms & Armour from the State of Styria” he writes of a new arms boom starting in 1619 when Gabor Bethlen Prince of Transylvania rose and marched on Vienna. The Styrian government then stocked up on arms based on the then modern Western European and Dutch models, based on the military reforms of Prince Maurice of Orange. The new designs became known from a drill book by Jacob de Gheyn, which illustrated the new fashionable arms in detail and inspired the local arms industry in Graz. Your helmet seems to be the “modern” style from this time which explains why they are virtually identical with Northern European and Dutch specimens.

That’s a very nice helmet by the way. I love that glint of steel. Do the neck lames articulate or are they fairly rigid?

Thank you so much for this extensive explanation and for sharing your knowledge Victrix!


One can move the neck lames slightly but I don´t want to try to what extend as I do not want to damage the old leather.
I like the overall shape of this helmet with its downward curved end of the tail:

One more question :) :
Have all Zischägges originally been blackened or are there assured examples that were originally bare?

Kind regards
Andreas

I think some zischägges and other helmets and armour were blackened whilst others were not. Probably some of the more munitions grade items used in the field/in action were blackened, but some more decorated items clearly were not. On some items the partial blackening form part of the decoration. I found this in Peter Krenn and Walter Karcheski’s “Imperial Austria, Treasures of Art, Arms & Armour from the State of Styria” (1998).

Thanks for the information Victrix. That makes sense

Let me add something to this old thread:

Here we have an example with a "modern" calotte dated 1652 and marked a with an "M". As this piece is from the arsenal of Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg, it is one more hint that the marks "L", "M" etc. is not an arsenal but a makers mark.

https://www.hermann-historica.de/de/.../lot/id/138656

Is it a “M” or a “W”? ;)

I think at the very least it might be a batchmaker’s mark. These helmets seem to have been fairly mass produced.

Interestingly the lames on the neck guard look like they are bolted together to stay in place as the leather straps are gone. The question is whether they were bolted together when the leather fell off, but it looks the lames were bolted together from the beginning. Otherwise presumably there would be additional holes.

I think it is an M taking into account the direction of the "F" and "L"s from the other examples.
The lames were not boltet together. Those center bolts / rivets are for decoration. The rivets on the inside did hold the leather that has gone. But this central leather strip didn't had an important function.